When America’s foremost
political pundit and spokesman for the powerful Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), Tom Friedman, says it’s time to reinstate the draft, we
should all pay attention. Friedman’s comments appeared in his June 15
column where he reiterated his past predictions that the war in Iraq was
still “winnable” if we “do it right.” What’s needed, Friedman postulates,
is to “double the boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort
to bring in the Sunnis.”

“Double the
boots on the ground”?

Sounds like
the draft to me.

Tom is no
fool; he realizes he won’t change the minds of Americans who’ve already
soured on the war. A recent Gallop poll indicates that a whopping 59% of
Americans are already sick of Iraq and want to see the troops withdrawn.
Friedman’s missive is directed to the slender 10% minority (according to
Gallup) who think that we should increase the number of troops.
Presumably, that figure includes a dwindling number of “die-hard” Bush
loyalists as well as the .01% of elites who actually run the country
behind the mask of democratic government.

Friedman’s
remedy is a straightforward call for a draft. He’s well aware that Iraq
will not be “pacified” without a massive commitment of American troops.
His logic supports the conclusions of General Shinseki who lost his job by
telling Congress that America would need “several hundred thousand troops”
to secure the country. Friedman’s reasoning is at loggerheads with the
recalcitrant Rumsfeld who admits no mistakes and is determined to continue
the current policy despite its disastrous results. Embracing the idea of a
draft would be an admission of failure, something that Rumsfeld’s fragile
vanity could never endure. This means that we should expect to see a
steady decline in morale, severe recruitment problems, and the growing
signs of an overextended and fractured military.

Friedman
blames our current problems in Iraq on everyone even loosely connected to
the fiasco. Republicans are to blame because they think their job is just
to “applaud whatever the Bush team does.” Democrats are to blame because
they “don’t want the Bush team to succeed.” Iraqis are to blame because
they “have not risen to the magnitude of the opportunity before (them)”
and because they have not produced a strong and independent leader like
(I’m not making this up) “Hamid Karzai.” But the man that Friedman blames
more than any other is Donald Rumsfeld. As Friedman sees it, the “core
problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to invade Iraq on the
cheap.” In other words, Friedman has no moral objections to the war; he
simply disparages the invasion in terms of its effectiveness in achieving
the imperial objectives.

The Defense
Secretary initiated what Friedman calls the “Rumsfeld Doctrine”, that is,
“just enough troops to lose.” There’s no mention of the tens of thousands
of innocent Iraqis who lost their lives in a needless act of aggression,
nor the 1,700 servicemen who died to establish a beachhead in the Middle
East for the Bush petrolocracy. Friedman’s only concern is whether the
boyish aspirations of global elites are carried out with some measure of
success.

Friedman’s
article points to the cracks and fissures that are now appearing in the
citadels of American power. It’s clear that many in the ruling
establishment no longer believe that the blundering Bush clan can win in
Iraq. Friedman hasn’t given up, though. Instead, he’s offering a last,
desperate solution for pulling the entire debacle out of the embers; the
draft.

As the
conflict continues to strain America’s resources, we should expect to see
even more carping from the powerbrokers who normally prefer to operate
behind the scenes. The sudden flourish of front page articles disparaging
the conduct of the war as well as the many stories about the Downing
Street memo suggest that some elites are getting restless with the degree
of incompetence at the Defense Dept. and would like to see a change of
leadership. Friedman is the spokesman for this burgeoning group of
disenchanted bigwigs.

So far, however, the differences between
elites are mainly superficial, as they are between Rumsfeld and Friedman.
Increasing troop strength is merely a change in strategy and doesn’t
challenge the fundamental principle of colonial rule. Despite the growing
unease over the botched occupation, the support for establishing a
long-term presence in the region is unwavering. The stakes will have to be
raised considerably, posing a direct threat to the men at the top of the
political pyramid, before we can expect to see a change in policy.